Right, the time has come to play with this again. Especially as Derek keeps posting his images up.

I have played a little with my old k100d and I used a Raynox lens with (I think) my Tamron something to 300mm lens.

I have been quite impressed with the Raynox, but, I am wondering if one is better with extension tubes?

I have got my few brain cells somewhat confused.I have been messing with too many combinations.

1) Am I right in thinking that the extension tubes will give a sharper result than the Raynox lenses ultimately?As in it removes another layer of glass. Also potentially letting in a bit more light?

2) I have tried a brief play with the extension tubes.I am using my old manual lenses and the extension tubes just lock the f stop to what I put it on at.So, wanting to increase my depth of field, I am trying to jam light in at the front, but it is too dark to focus.Is that just the way it is? Or is there a trick to it?

3) Is there a way to calculate your magnification and distance to object?I think I need to draw myself up a bit of a chart my head is spinning with my combinations. Then I will understand things better.I have extension tubes (three parts) , a Raynox 150 and 250 and lenses running from 28-300......

4) also, am I right in thinking that I should focus the lens as close as possible? (As in the opposite to infinity).

Probably, I have both and to be honest, I preferred the results from the tubes.

I have got my few brain cells somewhat confused.I have been messing with too many combinations.

1) Am I right in thinking that the extension tubes will give a sharper result than the Raynox lenses ultimately?As in it removes another layer of glass. Also potentially letting in a bit more light?

All things being equal, then i think the tubes will give better results, if your lens is soft then neither way will give sharp images. The raynox as it is a magnifying lens will also magnify any flaws, (my experience) The raynox is ideal for use with bridge cameras as you cant use tubes on a bridge.

2) I have tried a brief play with the extension tubes.I am using my old manual lenses and the extension tubes just lock the f stop to what I put it on at.So, wanting to increase my depth of field, I am trying to jam light in at the front, but it is too dark to focus.Is that just the way it is? Or is there a trick to it?

Nothing wrong with using older manual lenses with tubes, I love messing around with them. Keep in mind that the wider the lens the shorter your max focus distance will be. longer lenses will give you more room to work. For me, anything in or around 100mm works really wellI usually set around f8, and yes, light and focusing can be a pain. Practice in well lit area till you have a good understanding of distance and how much light you need.No trick that I know of anyway.

3) Is there a way to calculate your magnification and distance to object?I think I need to draw myself up a bit of a chart my head is spinning with my combinations. Then I will understand things better.I have extension tubes (three parts) , a Raynox 150 and 250 and lenses running from 28-300......

Maybe, but i dont know what it is, I just work by eye, not interested in scales just interested in whether or not the shot works.As far as i know the raynox can be stacked, you would probably get savage magnification but your dof would be tiny and the working distance would be tiny also. f stop would probably have little effect on dof.

4) also, am I right in thinking that I should focus the lens as close as possible? (As in the opposite to infinity).

Focusing close as possible will give you the greatest magnification but there will be times that its just too close.with a 100mm lens + 52mm tubes the focus range is probably around 2.5 feet (ish) from min to max focus distance.Depending on the size of the subject and how close you can get to it will dictate whether you should be trying to close focus or not.

Primes seem to work better than zooms for tube work. But zooms do work.

I hope some of this helps, there is another guy that is on here too, Nas i think, and he has a website all about macro shooting. If i can find it i will link it, or if anyone else knows it maybe they will.

Thats a pretty decent shot. if you zoom in to the eye you can see that you had the start of the facets. That leads me to suspect that the only real thing thats wrong is that the lens might have been a bit soft, maybe.

I have redone it slightly to show that you did get the eye, hope you dont mind, but if you do just tell me.

Grarea wrote:That Derek has a lot to answer for......This is with my 60-300mm @300mm and the Raynox 250mm. (and it needs a clean by the looks of it)It was a pretty small spider.IMGP9640 by chuffedas, on Flickr

Another good shot, sometimes the little bug (gers) dont play ball and are not in a great position to get a shot, but its still worth trying anyway for the practice. Keep up the good work. I dont always get it right you know , I just post what i think are my better ones. I usually try and focus on the eyes unless i am trying for a particular shot, as sometimes focusing on the eyes will lose the look im after.

I am all set for all the misses. I expect it. So, are you cropping in quite a lot there? I am getting in much closer than that.

I just feel like it is motion or missing the focus that makes it not quite sharp.

Although, I am stopping it down as far as I can to maximise the DOF.I am quite happy playing with softer lenses as I just enjoy playing, it is just interesting to see stuff up close,but I would also like to get better shots as well.

So, let me get some of the basics out of the way first.I shoot in RAW, bring into light room, process as little as possible, then export to my pc in jpeg.I make sure that I have nothing ticked that limits size or quality, then I upload to flickr, all good so far?

Raw is good. If you are comfortable with the processing. If you are only processing the jpeg, then you might be better just shooting jpeg, as raw files do need a fair amount of work. Dont be afraid to sharpen. If you over do it you'll see it. Push your iso to 400 or 800 if you need to. You shooting with k3 ?I don't use light room, just ps camera raw and ps.

Derek897 wrote:As far as i know the raynox can be stacked, you would probably get savage magnification but your dof would be tiny and the working distance would be tiny also. f stop would probably have little effect on dof.

Yes, I am often right on top of them.I have nudged insects with the lens in the past.

Derek897 wrote:with a 100mm lens + 52mm tubes the focus range is probably around 2.5 feet (ish) from min to max focus distance.Depending on the size of the subject and how close you can get to it will dictate whether you should be trying to close focus or not.

So, with my 135mm focussed to min distance and my extension tubes, I am 14 inches from the subject. It feels like miles away from what I have been doing

So is that where you are at and then cropping?

actually, isn't yours a 100mm macro?So you will be in closer than me i suspect?

I am usually around 7or 8 inches away, diffuser stop me getting closer. But I dont really need to be much closer to be honest. Mine is a 105mm macro. Dont worry about focus scales, just look through view finder.

Hmmmm, no wonder I get confused, my 60-300mm, when clicked into macro, you have to get really close. (about 4cm)If I add tubes, you actually can't get close enough to focus.But then if I just put the raynox 250, you have to get close, but it focusses magnified.

I tried to use my modern 17-70mm but it doesn't have a manual ring and so is too dark to see what I am doing.That is a shame as it focuses fairly close.

I think I could do with a test day and take a bunch of shots and notes.To compare what everything does.

Although, maybe I should start with my sharpest lens and work with that actually.Hmmmm

Derek897 wrote:I am usually around 7or 8 inches away, diffuser stop me getting closer. But I dont really need to be much closer to be honest. Mine is a 105mm macro. Dont worry about focus scales, just look through view finder.

I am not worried about scales, I was just wondering where you were at. Gives me a frame of reference.It means I would need to crop twice as much if I can only get within 14 inches with the tubes is what I am thinking.

Just trying to decide which lens to work with to get the best images really.

In the mean time, i get all excited about it when you see things Ignore the quality of the photos:The first one just shows the scale of the spider on a wallflower (out of focus and everything):IMGP9707 by chuffedas, on Flickr

Then this (again ignore the quality of the photo) excites me that you can see what it is doing with the web itself.I find it brilliant that you can see that.I look forward to being able to get a decent photo of things in the future.